For MathML we have a master bug 3251 that we've been making depend on every new patch for MathML. That is a very nice in that as new patches are added and committed, you can get notifications of the changes in status.
We also have the MathML component that all bugs should be associated with. As time goes but, bugs should get filed against the MathML component but they won't be associated with the master bug for MathML. What is the preferred process here? Should we keep the master bug? Should we use it only for our implementation efforts and not make it depend on every random bug filed for the MathML component? I certainly have my opinion on this. I'd rather not associated everything that gets reported with the master bug. Instead, I'd rather we only associated our implementation efforts or issues describing "sub-features" related to implementation of certain "features" of MathML (e.g. glyph inspection to tighten under/over placement). We can then make the bugs filed by random users depend on such implementation efforts associated with the master bug. I expect to get a lot of bugs like "my MathML is messed up, here's an example" where the specifics of "why" will be associated with a number of different specific technical issues. Basically, my preference is: master bug -> feature or technical issue <- user bug -- --Alex Milowski "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language considered." Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list email@example.com http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev